Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Definition of Terminologies

BullEviscerator
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 6:28:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hiya folks!
I was thinking that we could clear up this Definition of terminology biz.
If my opponent does not offer definition in the first round, and I offer a definition of my own, can he offer a definition alternative to my own in the second round?

"The fact that opponent failed to define the terminology in the first round meant that he/she was leaving the debate open to the interpretation of the CON. The opponent cannot and should not offer a radically alternative definition to the debate in the second round, as it will most definitely breach CON's argumentation and ability to argue against it.
What he/she can do is offer a slight modification of the terms in the context of which the terms are already defined."
^ this is what I think.

Whaddaya think? Do you concur? Can I call them out on it?

Maybe it'll help if I give you an example: http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 6:35:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree. If the Instigator does not properly define the terms used in the resolution, than it is up to the Contender's interpretation and they are forced to submit their own definition. At that point, the Instigator should not resubmit another definition unless the Contender's definition is so radically different than one found in a dictionary.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 7:07:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with both of you. In the first round, any definition established becomes permanent. By Round 2, definitions are debatable.
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 9:04:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
that's being a jackass in my opinion... you obviously knew what he meant... you just trying to be a smartass by changing the entire debate to mean something absurd. I mean if i started a debate about "dogs should be on leashes in public areas." I would have to define what a dog is because in some messed up dictionary a dog means like a watermelon and leashes means like deodorant and public means like outer space and areas mean potatoes in some messed up dictionary. Majority consensus will agree that if you asked what a felon is they will say a convict not a infection or whatever. Your going to win the debate you just shouldn't be proud about it.

So my watermelon should use deoderant in outer space potatoes...

Just debate what you know was originally intended...and stop being a smartass...
BullEviscerator
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 9:54:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 9:04:05 PM, Loserboi wrote:
that's being a jackass in my opinion... you obviously knew what he meant... you just trying to be a smartass by changing the entire debate to mean something absurd. I mean if i started a debate about "dogs should be on leashes in public areas." I would have to define what a dog is because in some messed up dictionary a dog means like a watermelon and leashes means like deodorant and public means like outer space and areas mean potatoes in some messed up dictionary. Majority consensus will agree that if you asked what a felon is they will say a convict not a infection or whatever. Your going to win the debate you just shouldn't be proud about it.

So my watermelon should use deoderant in outer space potatoes...

Just debate what you know was originally intended...and stop being a smartass...

Well, first of all, read my profile--BS is my life.

Second of all, get a sense of humor :D Laugh a little.

Thirdly, what kind of argument would it be, if everything was up to intuition? I would think that for an argument to be legitimate, there should be evidence supporting their argument to some extent.

Fourthly, what majority accepts as definition should not have part in a debate round. That's prejudice and you know how much Askbob is fixed upon involvement of prejudice in debating. ;)

As for your example, if the word "dog" had myriad meanings, it would be up to the opponent to not leave any room for misinterpretation. If there was this screwed up definition from a screwed up dictionary like urbandictionary, then the opponent could discredit the source. Mine, however, comes from a legitimate source and therefore stands. I have no obligation to seriously address a topic that has not been seriously proposed.